Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain how the product name is provided (e.g., from the current page), whether the tool performs side effects, or what the exact behavior is. The 'Browser-based' tag is vague and insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, directly stating the action and resource. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, an empty schema, no output schema, and a large list of sibling tools, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'browser-based' entails operationally, nor does it explain the output format or conditions for use, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description's '商品名から' (from product name) is the only indication of input. Since there are no formal parameters, the description adds the essential semantic meaning for the expected input, meeting the baseline for 0-param tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: '商品名からSEOキーワードを分解・サジェスト生成' (decompose/suggest SEO keywords from product name), which identifies the verb and resource. It also adds 'Browser-based tool' to hint at the environment, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other keyword-related tools like keyword-difficulty-checker.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks details on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only hint is 'Browser-based tool,' which does not convey the practical context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.